"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v ACIRL Proprietary Limited

[2023] FWC 820

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
v

ACIRL Proprietary Limited

(B2023/306)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 4 APRIL 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of ACIRL Proprietary Limited

This is an application by the "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of ACIRL Proprietary Limited (Respondent).

On 3 April 2023, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Danny Jay Lloyd Lorraway of the Applicant declared on 3 April 2023, setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

An Order has been separately issued in PR760882.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission received an application from the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to conduct a protected action ballot among certain employees of ACIRL Proprietary Limited. The application was made on the basis that the union had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the respondent and had satisfied the notification time requirements as per section 443(1) of the Act. The respondent did not oppose the application, and the matter was decided on the papers without a hearing. The decision was made by Vice President Catanzariti on 4 April 2023.

The key legal issue before the court was whether the union had met the necessary criteria to conduct a protected action ballot, including the requirement that the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer. The court needed to assess whether the union had complied with the notification time and if the union's application met the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act.

The Fair Work Commission determined that the union had satisfied the requirements to conduct the ballot. The Vice President was satisfied that the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer and that the notification time had been met. The Commission relied on the statutory declaration of Danny Jay Lloyd Lorraway of the AMWU, which outlined the steps taken in bargaining with the respondent. As a result, the Commission granted the union's application for a protected action ballot. An order was subsequently issued in PR760882, allowing the union to proceed with the ballot among the specified employees.

No further orders were made in the decision. The Fair Work Commission's decision was based on the material presented and the compliance of the union with the statutory requirements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established